How to read this register

The blueprint contributes 50 candidate gate concepts. They are treated as evidence-prompt and checkpoint concepts, not approval gates. Inclusion here means preserved for review — not approved, not correct, not universally applicable, and not yet safe for a non-technical user.

Every candidate starts as a research candidate. A prompt may enter the named pilot as a visibly versioned pilot prompt. Through pilot practice each one should gain:

1. exact source, contract or specification citations;
2. a safe, reproducible method and an instrument/calibration rule;
3. the correct observation unit, threshold and tolerance for the project;
4. the party responsible for capture, and who may see and respond;
5. professional source, provenance and effective scope;
6. a privacy, evidence-minimisation and retention rule;
7. positive, negative and inconclusive examples.

Review classes

These identify whose practice should inform the prompt. They do not create a runtime approver or release role.

REG

Current regulator/statutory source plus project legal professional

STR

Registered structural/civil engineer and structural specification

ARC

Project architect/contract administrator and specification

MEP-E

Competent electrical engineer or electrician

MEP-P

Competent mechanical/plumbing engineer or appointed specialist

HSE

Project HSE professional; the app must include stop conditions

QS-C

Quantity surveyor/contract administrator and exact contract terms

PROD

Product/evidence-method validation on top of the technical authority

What we are asking you

Judge each gate on whether it is a sensible thing to check on a real project you would fund or deliver — the timing, the repeat unit, and whether the evidence would actually tell you something. Fixed numeric tolerances in the source material are research-derived and are not expected to ship unchanged, so do not treat a missing number as the problem.